"In Parliament, I've seen grown men cry over MPs' expenses"

If you think MPs are over-paid, think again. An anonymous MP explains how a flat salary and little chance of ministerial perks cause misery over childcare costs and mortgage payments.

In the pig swill of Westminster something new is stirring.

After two decades of MPs arguing for more pay colleagues are falling over themselves to forego any pay rise, ever. Not now. Not in the future, but please let me keep my pension is the sotto voce subtext.

“I’m happy with my salary,” a headline screams. This young mum will soon learn that childcare costs when you work to midnight will eat it up. Hope she’s got an overdraft or a rich husband. Nick Clegg starts an inevitable Dutch auction by pledging to forego any rise. Easy for him now his rich wife doesn’t have to pay those private school fees after all.

There’s a sigh of inevitability from colleagues as each leader comes out to condemn any pay rise. They’re always first in the queue (we’d be hammered if he didn’t, said one advisor) these leaders with their generous Government salaries, rich wives and ministerial cars.

But this time less anger from the rank and file. And in a sign that the troughs of mud covered expenses have been well and truly emptied there is a palpable uncomfortable feeling about being paid more.

The impending election fills us with dread as candidates will be pressured to declare that they will forgo the pay rise. Easy for the candidate with no hope of winning. A different matter if you have a mortgage to pay. “It’s our job,” says one colleague plaintively.

Tory A-listers are still reeling. Many sacrificed good careers with prospects for a flat salary and little chance of a ministerial job. I’ve seen grown men in tears because of the system of expenses that pillories MPs and makes many afraid to claim.

Others say that you need money to do this job now, “I’m lucky I did well in a previous life so I don’t need to claim anything”, one told me sanguinely in the coffee queue. Not uncommon. And there’s the female MP whose husband gave up his job to do the childcare because it doesn’t pay him to work. Not uncommon with many families but most people imagine MPs can afford full time nannies. The reality is far from that for most.

The young families are struggling the most. If they have a London mortgage or rent (and as we spend half a week in London a number do) the maths just don’t work.

Bravely Mark Pritchard sticks his head above the parapet to declare that Parliament must not be just for the privileged. Multi-millionaire and hero of the working man Adam Afriyie has been brave (and rich) enough to repeat this for three years.

All parties unite in a bit of “why do we do the job” “how often do you think about giving up?” moaning. Well, there’s a long queue of people keen to take it on. Though in some seats the shortlists these days are very short. The reality check about the money and the prospects increasingly makes wannabes think twice. And many walk away.

Pritchard and Afriyie are right. This place must not become a place just for the privileged. Richer MPs will forego more pay because they can. The poorer will because they feel guilty. And this is why we set up an independent body to take the decision out of our hands.

There is one unifying cry – we created the monster that is now putting us  through this prolonged agony of a pre-announcement, a speech and then (oh wait for the abuse) a public consultation before any decision.

So we are to blame for a body which pays its communications official £20,000 a year more than MPs.

There is never a good time to increase MPs’ pay but doing a catch-up every five years will always mean it is too much. So why isn’t the salary linked to another job that the public understand? Should MPs be offered two thirds of a GP’s salary or three quarters? And while we’re at it let’s stop the lunacy that describes employing staff to respond to constituents as “expenses”. If anything underlines the other worldliness of Parliament, that does. 

Now read Eleanor Margolis explain why we need our MPs to be less "moaty" - ie professionals, not wealthy hobbyists.


The Houses of Parliament. Photograph: Getty Images
Getty Images.
Show Hide image

PMQs review: Theresa May shows again that Brexit means hard Brexit

The Prime Minister's promise of "an end to free movement" is incompatible with single market membership. 

Theresa May, it is commonly said, has told us nothing about Brexit. At today's PMQs, Jeremy Corbyn ran with this line, demanding that May offer "some clarity". In response, as she has before, May stated what has become her defining aim: "an end to free movement". This vow makes a "hard Brexit" (or "chaotic Brexit" as Corbyn called it) all but inevitable. The EU regards the "four freedoms" (goods, capital, services and people) as indivisible and will not grant the UK an exemption. The risk of empowering eurosceptics elsewhere is too great. Only at the cost of leaving the single market will the UK regain control of immigration.

May sought to open up a dividing line by declaring that "the Labour Party wants to continue with free movement" (it has refused to rule out its continuation). "I want to deliver on the will of the British people, he is trying to frustrate the British people," she said. The problem is determining what the people's will is. Though polls show voters want control of free movement, they also show they want to maintain single market membership. It is not only Boris Johnson who is pro-having cake and pro-eating it. 

Corbyn later revealed that he had been "consulting the great philosophers" as to the meaning of Brexit (a possible explanation for the non-mention of Heathrow, Zac Goldsmith's resignation and May's Goldman Sachs speech). "All I can come up with is Baldrick, who says our cunning plan is to have no plan," he quipped. Without missing a beat, May replied: "I'm interested that [he] chose Baldrick, of course the actor playing Baldrick was a member of the Labour Party, as I recall." (Tony Robinson, a Corbyn critic ("crap leader"), later tweeted that he still is one). "We're going to deliver the best possible deal in goods and services and we're going to deliver an end to free movement," May continued. The problem for her is that the latter aim means that the "best possible deal" may be a long way from the best. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.